Box Turtle Bulletin

Maggie’s Money to be Investigated

Fred Karger stands as an example of what you can do if you have determination, a moral cause, and the confidence to act on it.

It is Fred who has been leading the boycott against Doug Manchester’s Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Manchester undoubtedly regrets funding the signature collection process for Proposition 8 and he serves as a warning to those who may wish to contribute heavily against efforts to overturn the marriage ban.

Fred also was a significant player in the effort to identify the contributers to Proposition 8, a project that revealed the extent to which the Mormon Church organized, funded, staffed, and controlled the anti-gay marriage campaign. You can be sure that religious institution considers Karger as one of their least favorite people.

And now Fred is taking on Maggie Gallagher and her National Organization for Marriage.

Earlier this year Fred accused NOM of being a front group for the Mormon Church. He provided secret documents illustrating how the church set up other front groups in the past and drew comparisons to NOM. While NOM has denied such a connection, they have illegally refused to provide their tax filings and have retaliated by deposing Fred and demanding every document relating to his efforts.

But Fred is undaunted. He is challenging the way in which anti-gay activists are funding their efforts to block marriage equality in Maine. And, in a hearing today, it is working (Portland Press Herald)

The state ethics commission voted 3-2 today to order an investigation of the fundraising efforts by the National Organization of Marriage, a Washington, D.C.,-based organization that has given money to fight same-sex marriage in Maine.

Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate filed a complaint with the commission saying the group should be required to disclose the names of donors. In response, Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, said they have not raised money specifically for Maine and therefore are not required to report individual donors.

Fred provided solicitations from NOM that seem to clearly illustrate that Brown is lying.

NOM Spent 86K To Defeat A Pro-NOM Candidate And Failed

This just doesn’t make sense. As Timothy reported, the National Organization for Marriage threw $86,000 to Iowa State House candidate Stephen Burgmeier to give the pro-NOM candidate more than a 3:1 advantage over his opponent, Curt Hanson. Despite that huge financial advantage, Burgmeier lost. NOM spent that money because Burgmeier supports allowing a constitutional vote on whether Iowa should ban same-sex marriage.

But so does Hanson.

So that means that NOM spent a bucketfull of money to support a pro-NOM candidate in order to defeat another pro-NOM candidate. And lost. The mind reels…

NOM Loses Big in Iowa

Maggie Gallagher gambled big in Iowa. Her National Organization for Marriage spent over $86,000 to buy television ads for the Republican candidate, Stephen Burgmeier, who supports putting marriage equality up to a vote.

While $86,000 might not be a large sum in, say, the New York gubernatorial campaign, it towers in comparison to the $63 K Burgmeier raised on his own or the $43 K pulled in by his opponent. But this flood of cash did not accomplish what they had hoped. (Iowa Independent)

Democrat Curt Hanson has defeated Republican Stephen Burgmeier by 107 votes in Iowa House District 90, according to unofficial results released by the Iowa Secretary of State\’s office Tuesday night.

Hanson will replace former state Rep. John Whitaker (D-Hillsboro), who was appointed to a position with the USDA. The balance of power in Iowa\’s lower legislative chamber remains unchanged, with Democrats holding on to a somewhat volatile 56-44 majority.

But the bigger loss for Maggie and NOM may be procedural and in reputation. As in Maine, questions have arisen about whether NOM is flouting campaign law and illegally money-laundering contributions. (Los Angeles Times)

Last month, W. Charles Smithson, the director of the Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, wrote to NOM to “make sure everyone was on the same page” and that the group was familiar with Iowa election law. One point Smithson made was that NOM would need to register as a political action committee if donors are giving $750 or more for “express advocacy activities” – as well as disclose the identities of donors.

When NOM did not register as a PAC or disclose the source of the television ad funds, One Iowa and the Interfaith Alliance of Iowa Action Fund filed a complaint with the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board.

As these complaints continue to stack up, state by state, eventually Gallagher will find herself explaining to a judge a good deal more about the structure and funding of the National Organization for Marriage than she wishes. And if Fred Karger’s accusation about NOM being a front-group for the Mormon Church has any basis whatsoever, such a disclosure could be devastating to her efforts.

I hardly see how gambling on a long-shot candidate in Iowa in flagrant violation of campaign laws could have been considered a wise bet.

Tim Horton’s Drops NOM Fundraiser

According to this statement:

Recently, Tim Hortons was approached in Rhode Island to provide free coffee and products for a local event, as we do thousands of times a year across Canada and the United States.

For 45 years, Tim Hortons and its store owners have practiced a philosophy of giving back to the communities in which we operate. As a company, our primary focus is on helping children and supporting fundraising events for non-profit organizations and registered charities.

For this reason, Tim Hortons has not sponsored those representing religious groups, political affiliates or lobby groups.

It has come to our attention that the Rhode Island event organizer and purpose of the event fall outside of our sponsorship guidelines. As such, Tim Hortons can not provide support at the event.

Tim Hortons and its store owners have always welcomed all families and communities to its restaurants and will continue to do so. We apologize for any misunderstanding or inconvenience this may have caused.

Congratulations! Your calls and emails made a difference.

Popular Doughnut Chain Sponsors Anti-Gay Fundraiser

The Providence Daily Dose is reporting that Tim Horton’s, a popular Canada-based doughnut chain with hundreds of franchises in the Northeast and upper Midwest of the United States, is sponsoring the  National Organization for Marriage\’s “Celebrate Marriage and Family Day” fundraiser on August 16 in suburban Providence, Rhode Island.

Tim Horton’s is simultaneously Canada’s largest coffeehouse chain and largest doughnut chain, and has had an expanding presence in the United States for more than a decade. The chain’s corporate policy bans sponsoring “individuals, those representing religious groups, political affiliates, book endorsements or traveling sports teams.” However, there’s a loophole in that policy, which allows local franchisees to donate as they please. Which means that their corporate policy has no teeth to it whatsoever. You can contact Tim Horton’s to let them know what you think of their policy.

Update: Tim Horton’s pulls out of the fundraiser.

NOM Needs a Dictionary

Merriam-Webster defines “petition” as a “a formal written request made to an official person or organized body”. Most commonly it is a method by which individuals can show their support of a collective effort to influence a body on a decision.

In other words, a petition has a specific request and a specific audience.

But the National Organization for Marriage isn’t quite sure what the word “petition” means. On their new website Stand With Carrie, they request that visitors “Sign the Petition to Stand with Carrie!” But they provide no petition nor any indication of what “standing with Carrie” might be about:

Carrie Prejean could have had it all, at the price of sacrificing her values. She chose to speak the truth. She chose to Stand Up for Marriage. Now she is paying the price. It’s time for us to Stand with Carrie. Sign up now to let Carrie know you stand with her. And check back soon for more details on how you can help Carrie stand for truth.

Is this directed towards Donald Trump? Does she want her tiara back? Is she now interested in doing the tasks of Miss California? Who knows?

This is a “petition” with neither a request nor a petitionee; this is not a petition at all. Either the designer of the National Organization for Marriage’s new website is not very bright, or that is his opinion about those who visit there.

NOM Loses It Over Carrie’s Lost Glittering Tiara

Here is the National Organization for Marriage’s full press release in all of its fabulous hystronic wild-eyed glory:

THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MARRIAGE RESPONDS TO THE FIRING OF MISS CALIFORNIA USA CARRIE PREJEAN:

(Princeton, NJ) – Today, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) issued the following statement in response to the firing Miss California USA Carrie Prejean:

“Hollywood hates Carrie. First they abuse her, then they try to get her to recant, then they threw mud, and now they are doing what they wanted to do from day one: Get rid of Carrie.

This cover story about a contract dispute doesn\’t pass the smell test. Americans aren\’t fooled that easily. God knows, and we know, the truth about Carrie: She\’s a young woman of great beauty who chose truth over the glittering tiara that Hollywood offers,” said Brian Brown, Executive Director for NOM. “Of course they will try to punish her, but we know she will be fine in the end, because her values are in the right place.”

“Hollywood will dance its tribal war dance over her body–the hatred generated against her has been extraordinary–but Carrie will be free to define her own mission and message from now on. Congratulations,” stated Maggie Gallagher, President for NOM.

Cue the war dance.

I’ve been informed that depicting Maori and other Indiginous Peoples is a “racist misappropriation” and that “acontextual stereotypes of Native people being warlike and savage” are offensive. Although I doubt that my Native American ancestory would qualify me as entitled to use a depiction of a Cherokee war dance, I trust that my Scottish ancestory and last name will suffice to allow for a Highlander to be shown. So I have replaced the photograph of the Maori dancers with a painting by Robert Griffing which depicts a Highland war dance, the Sword Dance.

Although it probably isn’t the type of “tribal war dance” that Gallagher was picturing, it is likely the only image that would be deemed acceptable by those who do such deeming. Scots don’t much complain about such imagery. And if anyone continues to be concerned about the racist misappropriation of the honorable Highland Scots, it may calm your concerns to note that this particular dancer appears to be wearing Kincaid Plaid.

NOM’s Bedfellows

Guess what happens when you point your browser to NationalOrganizationForMarriage.com? (Not risqué, but may not be safe for work depending on your employer’s policies.)

[Hat tip: Good As You]

Maggie Gallagher’s Bogus Poll

By now, none of us really expect that anything coming from Maggie Gallagher or her National Organization for Marriage is the truth. But sometimes her utter contempt for the truth is so blatant as to be astonishing.

Take, for example, her 2009 NOM Massachusetts Marriage Survey.

Now, of course, this is not really a poll that is seeking to determine attitudes about marriage in Massachusetts. Rather, this is simply her attempt to try and come up with an artificial opposition to marriage equality and to try and convince the public that marriage has hurt Massachusetts.

But even for a push poll, this is laughable.

First, her sample is as far from representative as you can get. While about 60% of Massachusans are between the age of 18 and 50, this is only 20% of Maggie’s sample. And while those over 75 make up about 9% of the population, they are 24% of her survey. What did Maggie poll, retirement communities?

And though only about 31% of Massachusans attend church “almost weekly”, about 47% of Maggie’s group does.

Then look at the claims she makes in a press release:

Do Children Need a Mom and Dad? Majority Say Yes

But what did the survey really ask?

13. Here\’s one more statement: “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by their married mother and a father?” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

Well who would disagree with that? Not me – not the way it’s phrased. So it’s hardly a surprise that 76% agreed.

But do I think “children need a Mom and Dad”? Nope.

Maggie goes on pretending that her findings suggest that “Massachusetts voters remain sharply divided about gay marriage”. They don’t.

Afraid to ask whether marriage should remain legal in the state, Maggie tried to appeal to personal dislike of gays or personal discomfort with gay marriage. But even then she failed. 43% of respondents were generally personally favorable and another 14% couldn’t care less.

9. Do you personally favor or oppose same-sex marriage generally?

43% FAVOR
44% OPPOSE
14% DON’T KNOW/NO RESPONSE

Maggie goes on to try and spin her survey results to support her cause using percentages of percentages, but in the process provides us with some interesting information about the attitudes of Massachusetts voters.

• 44% think that opposing gay marriage is discrimination comparable to racial discrimination. And while
• 16% think that “people may try to hurt you” if you are an anti-gay-marriage activist, only
• 7% know someone who “feels they were harassed or intimidated” because of their anti-gay marriage beliefs

(Maggie calls this “a surprisingly substantial minority of voters”)

But getting around Maggie’s loaded questions and her contorted analysis, a picture emerges of the Massachusetts voter.

About half are personally supportive of marriage equality while the rest seem fairly content. Most support the right of dissenters to disagree and only a tiny fringe think that their views are being suppressed. They aren’t worried about whether their kids (or grandkids) are being taught about same-sex couples in school. And they tend to think that anti-marriage activists are distasteful, if not downright bigots, and acknowledge that the state has broad social support for the institution. And these are the opinions of the old religious folk.

In short, the sky hasn’t fallen. The citizens aren’t upset. Massachusetts has now seen that marriage equality is a good thing.

NOM’s Childish New Video

The National Organization for Marriage first brought us a Gathering Storm of oookie spookie actors being scared by a downpour of gay marriages. Then they set up a topless posing, fake-boobed, beauty pageant queen runner up as the “face of the marriage movement“.

Now NOM has a new ad that they are running. Check it out.

Awwww. Cute kids. Makes you want to give them a cookie.

But as for changing minds, I’m not too worried about the impact of this one. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t take my political advice from toddlers.

Maggie Gallagher Gives False Information About El Coyote Owner

I don\’t object to National Organization for Marriage\’s Maggie Gallagher having any view she wishes to endorse. Nor do I oppose her opining wherever she gets the chance.

But Gallagher is not entitled to make claims that are contrary to the facts.

On Larry King Live (with Joy Behar sitting in as guest host), Gallagher said the following:

After Prop 8 … we had a waitress who gave $100 to support marriage and people were calling for her job, they wanted her to lose her job because she supported marriage as a man and a woman.

That, of course, was a reference to the response when gay Angelenos found out that Margie Christoffersen contributed to Proposition 8. Margie was not “a waitress”.

Margie is the “face” of El Coyote Mexican Restaurant, the family member selected to represent the family owned establishment to their customers. She is the daughter of the titular owner and the wife of the business manager for the company; they operate the restaurant together.

When gay patrons of the restaurant, most of whom had been customers for decades, found out that Margie had smiled at them one day and gave money to remove their rights the next, they demanded a meeting. In that meeting Margie was completely dismissive of their concerns.

Christoffersen has never been a waitress. Gallagher knows the facts of this story, she’s written on it before. This was nothing but a false attempt to elicit sympathy for a powerless woman who feared for her next paycheck, a woman who does not exist.

The Marriage Movement’s Face Doesn’t Speak

Earlier this week, National Organization for Marriage’s Maggie Gallagher nominated Carrie Prejean as the “new face of the marriage movement.” And after meeting with Carrie, she went on to feature her in NOM’s new ad and to have her speak at their press conference.

But now Maggie has released a statement suggesting that the face of the marriage movement doesn’t speak for the marriage movement. How fitting.

A number of media sources have described Carrie Prejean as a spokesperson for the National Organization for Marriage.

As we made clear at our press conference yesterday: Carrie appeared with NOM as a private citizen; she does not work for the National Organization for Marriage. She is a spokesperson for her own views, as anyone watching her can tell.

We are grateful to Carrie Prejean for her willingness to stand up for marriage. We would love to work with Carrie in the future if she chooses, and we wish her well in all her future endeavors whatever she chooses. We’re proud of her. Americans are proud of her. She is a remarkable young woman. Thank you, Carrie.

It’s hardly a surprise that Maggie is trying to downplay Carrie’s authority as the voice of the “marriage movement”. Calling in to Greta Van Susteren on FoxNews, it was quite clear that Carrie’s thoughts on recognition and rights for gay couples are less than thoroughly developed.

VAN SUSTEREN: What is your thought on civil unions?

PREJEAN: My thought on civil unions? You know what, Greta? I don’t have the answers to everything. I’m not running for political office. I don’t have the answers to everything, you know, in the world out there.

But I think that there should be rights for people, you know, especially in California. I think that people that are homosexual should have some rights, you know, hospital rights, and things like that.

But I would like to be more educated on that, so when I do have a better answer for you, I will get back to you on that one.

But so far I just support traditional marriage, and that’s my main focus.

VAN SUSTEREN: What about adoption?

PREJEAN: Greta, I am focusing on marriage right now, not adoption, not civil unions, just traditional marriage, and I’m going to do whatever it takes to promote that.

VAN SUSTEREN: I understand, and I understand your position on traditional marriage. I’m just sort of trying to figure out where you draw the line in terms of what kind of rights that you think that a man and woman should have that maybe two men, two women, shouldn’t have.

And that’s why I was asking the question on civil unions and adoptions. I was just trying to sort it out for myself what you think.

PREJEAN: Well, I’m not a politician, so I can’t give you an answer to that.

Tipping Point

Matt Baume, writing in SF Appeal, makes the point that all conversations about gay people, their families, and their lives advance the movement towards equality.

What’s hastening along this shift in public opinion? Conversations. The more people talk about gay couples, the more comfortable they are with them. And it doesn’t even seem to matter what people say — lord knows, there’ve been plenty of anti-gay conversations lately — every conversation keeps nudging public opinion towards equality. So the anti-gay-couple groups like the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) are standing in quicksand: the more they keep struggling, the faster they sink. Next month, the California Supreme Court will rule on Prop 8 — and no matter the outcome, it’ll nudge public opinion yet again.

Baume also links to our observations on NOM’s second ad. Thanks, Matt.

The, Ahem, “Face” of the Marriage Movement

Maggie Gallager has declared Carrie Prejean to be the face of the Marriage Movement.

So here’s what “the face of the marriage movement” looks like:

The face of the National Organization for Marriage with what God gave her

And after the plastic surgery, here are what “the boobs of the marriage movement” look like:

And with what the Miss California Pageant gave her

NOM’s Lesson in Irony

After National Organization for Marriage’s “Gathering Storm” ad aired – and was subjected to much mockery – the Human Rights Campaign got their hands on the audition tapes for the ad and put them on youtube. This was an embarrassment that was covered by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

NOM responded by claiming copyright infringement and even insisted that youtube pull the Maddow segment because of the tiny snippet she showed.

Now NOM has discovered that karma can be a b-tch (as Christian press might spell it). Perez Hilton (aka Mario Lavandiera) has caused the new Carrie Prejean ad to be pulled because they used a tiny snippet of his video.

Now I think that both video bits are probably perfectly legal under the Fair Use doctrine. And it’s petty of Perez. But it certainly is delicious irony.

And Maggie Gallagher must be furious. She hates being treated the same as gay folk.